Point of law: Since notice has been issued after 78 years, it is completely beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the notice itself would be a nullity and without any jurisdiction. When the notice itself is without jurisdiction, issue of alternative remedy falls into insignificance and the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail alternative remedy.

ORDER :

1. By filing this petition under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has mainly sought for the following relief:-

“12. ………….

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and a Writ of Prohibition or any other writ, order or direction against respondent no.15 herein namely, City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) prohibiting him from proceeding with RTS/Appeal/Case No.1/2021 (Annexure-A & B) and be further pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the proceeding (Annexure-A & B).”

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Bhatt appearing with Mr.Vivek Bhamre, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr.Nikunj Kanara for respondent no.14 and 15 and learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah appearing for respondent nos.7, 8 and 9. Though other respondents are served, they have not appeared.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has challenged initiation of proceedings being RTS/Appeal/Case No.1/2021, relating to revenue entry no.2270 dated 16.3.1943, after a period of 78 years, as initiation of proceedings itself is without jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. According to the petitioner, one Mohanji Bavaji was the owner of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.473/1 and 473/2 of Village-Makarba, who has passed away on 10.12.1942. After the death of Mohanji Bavaji, name of Punaji Mohanji was mutated in the revenue record by entry no.2270 in the year 1943.

3.1 It is contended that on 20.9.1990, land was sold by Punaji Mohanji Thakore and his family members to Amrutlal Bholidas Patel and Shantaben Patel for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- and revenue entry thereof was mutated being revenue entry no.7167 dated 21.7.1992. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family members have purchased the land in question for a consideration of Rs.8,50,0000/- from Amrutlal Bholidas Patel and Shantaben Amrutlal Patel by a registered Sale Deed in the year 2001 and revenue entry no.9080 was mutated in this regard on 27.9.2001.

3.2 The petitioner intended to use the land for nonagricultural purpose and, therefore, he applied to Collector, Ahmedabad, for converting the land into Non-Agricultural land on 19.12.2019 and the Collector converted the land into NA land under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. Entry in this regard was mutated in the revenue record vide entry no.16592 dated 3.2.2020. It is contended that, on 6.7.2021, the petitioner received summons of a case challenging heir-ship entry No.2270 dated 16.3.1943 after a period of 78 years.

4. Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that by way of alleged proceedings, the revenue authorities are trying to set aside entry of the year 1943, after passage of 78 years. While referring to Sections 204, 205, 206 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which pertains to filing of appeal, he has submitted that according to these provisions without any order condoning delay, straightaway proceeding has been initiated. He has submitted that there is no explanation of delay of 78 years in initiation of such proceedings. He has also submitted that during this interregnum period, nature of the land has also changed. He has also submitted that the land in question fall under the Town Planning and Urban Development Act and by virtue of Section 67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, all rights in the original plot extinguished and only rights stated by the Town Planning Officer can be claimed and, in that view of the matter, there is no existence of rights relating to revenue survey number and revenue authority has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

4.1 Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that prior to coming into operation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there was no right of Hindu daughter in the property left by her f